My book about Brexit is out!

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

By this logic there should be a referendum every week as the old one (that hasn't been enacted) will not be a 'current' reflection of opinion.
But really just say it like it is. 'We want another referendum because we lost the first one'. No need to hide behind 'oh opinion has changed' or 'voters are dead' or 'people didn't know what they were voting for.' Just say it plain - nobody is fooled. Of course the argument that 'a referendum is not binding' will most likely go out the window if there's another one and it's a remain majority (as it would have done in 2016 had the vote gone the other way)

 

[websaway]

removed

 

[websaway]

If you think the ballot box is sacrosanct (I agree) then if people have changed their minds, the result of any 'update' ballot box will also be sacrosanct. At all times, we need to keep up to speed with what the people actually want.

If people actually have changed their minds... like you say... let the ballot box speak.

They may not have changed their minds, in which case you have nothing to fear. It's obvious that a referendum in 2019 is a more up to date measurement of what people actually want now, than a referendum in 2016. Why should you be running scared of what people want here and now in 2019?

A no deal Brexit isn't even remotely acceptable to most people. If it is, you'll win the 2nd referendum, won't you?

I can go with a sensible negotiated deal-based relationship with the EU. I can't go with a No deal, because it will hit the poorest hardest, and risks throwing us into the arms of Trump. I think that is a moderate position, and a middle ground position that more people hold than the extremist option of crashing out with no deal.

If that's what people actually want, how are we going to establish that - a second referendum is one way.

If you think the ballot box is sacrosanct (I agree) then if people have changed their minds, the result of any 'update' ballot box will also be sacrosanct. At all times, we need to keep up to speed with what the people actually want.

If people actually have changed their minds... like you say... let the ballot box speak.

They may not have changed their minds, in which case you have nothing to fear. It's obvious that a referendum in 2019 is a more up to date measurement of what people actually want now, than a referendum in 2016. Why should you be running scared of what people want here and now in 2019?

A no deal Brexit isn't even remotely acceptable to most people. If it is, you'll win the 2nd referendum, won't you?

I can go with a sensible negotiated deal-based relationship with the EU. I can't go with a No deal, because it will hit the poorest hardest, and risks throwing us into the arms of Trump. I think that is a moderate position, and a middle ground position that more people hold than the extremist option of crashing out with no deal.

If that's what people actually want, how are we going to establish that - a second referendum is one way.

Some of what you say is simply a fearful opinion, which you are entitled to even though it has no factual substance. What you say about democracy and people changing their minds is credible but the result of the 2016 referendum has to be implemented to uphold our democratic system. I see little point in pointing out that if there was an in out referendum carried out again then leave would win by a larger margin than last time. I agree that there could be a change in the result if the dice was loaded.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

By this logic there should be a referendum every week as the old one (that hasn't been enacted) will not be a 'current' reflection of opinion.
But really just say it like it is. 'We want another referendum because we lost the first one'. No need to hide behind 'oh opinion has changed' or 'voters are dead' or 'people didn't know what they were voting for.' Just say it plain - nobody is fooled. Of course the argument that 'a referendum is not binding' will most likely go out the window if there's another one and it's a remain majority (as it would have done in 2016 had the vote gone the other way)

There's a much easier way to nip that argument in the bud: make the second referendum legally binding rather than advisory. It can be done. It's happened before. It didn't happen in 2016, but there's no reason not to do so in 2020 or whenever a second referendum might be held.

That way there's no question mark. Whatever the result, politicians must implement it because the law says so.

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

I think it just boils down to MPs (who badly misjudged the public) thinking 'ok how can we ignore the democratic majority whilst still giving the impression that people had a say?' This has all shown what a farce it all is. I'm quite happy with a benign dictatorship but be open about it. Just say 'you don't have a say in this and this is what we're going to do'. It would've saved three years of inevitable pantomime. I said the day after the result that there was NO way the establishment would allow it...and here we are... still....

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

There's a much easier way to nip that argument in the bud: make the second referendum legally binding rather than advisory. It can be done. It's happened before. It didn't happen in 2016, but there's no reason not to do so in 2020 or whenever a second referendum might be held.

That way there's no question mark. Whatever the result, politicians must implement it because the law says so.

I think when people were told 'the government will implement your decision no matter what it is' they thought the government would implement their decision no matter what it was. Sorry if I don't believe you but why should I?

 

[websaway]

Lets say that in the 2015 election UKIP had won a majority in parliament and then passed a bill for an in out referendum on leaving the EU. The government backed a leave policy and sent out literature to every household telling the benefits of leaving and warning of the consequences of remaining. The result of the referendum was to remain. However two thirds of mp's wanted to leave and left the EU regardless of the peoples vote.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

I think when people were told 'the government will implement your decision no matter what it is' they thought the government would implement their decision no matter what it was. Sorry if I don't believe you but why should I?

I understand. I made the same point in the book. A lot of commitments were made surrounding the outcome of the referendum. But if we limit the discussion to the legal, then it is fact that the referendum was advisory not legally binding. That's not the same as saying "it shouldn't be implemented". But it's correct to say that no law compels politicians to do so, only the weight of public opinion and previous commitments made.

As I put it: "In other words, the referendum result places a non-legal but still real obligation on the government to try to implement the outcome."

 

[websaway]

Websaway, it will be up to the Scottish Government to work out the wording of IndyRef 2. And up to the people of Scotland to determine their own future. I shouldn't lose sleep over that. If the UK crashes out with a 'no deal' then the options will frankly be pretty straightforward for the people of Scotland. 'Do you want to stay in the UK or don't you?'

Given the significant change in circumstances from the last referendum, we'll have to see what the people of Scotland want. I'm not saying independence is inevitable, but the way Scotland and its interests and views on the EU are sidelined, I hope the English Brexiteers fully understand the possibility that the UK may cease to exist. There's no point waving the flag over Brexit if people end up without a Union to have a Union Jack for. Politicians are playing with fire. Fortunately, in Scotland, calm and measured decisions will be taken, step by step. We'll have to wait and see, but the Scottish Government will draft the Referendum wording. It's up to them.

An in out referendum to leave the UK. That's interesting, would that be a final vote , or would the deal go back to the people, if the UK played hard ball would we tell the scots they did not know what they voted for. Would the scots say leave means leave whatever the destination ?

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

You didn't finish your sentence to be truthful
"In other words, the referendum result places a non-legal but still real obligation on the government to try to implement the outcome provided it is the result they want."

I saw this in a comment section on a blog. 'Democracy EU style'
Denmark 1992 : Maastricht Treaty : 51.7 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
Ireland 2001 : Nice Treaty : 53.9 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
France 2005 : EU constitution : 54.9 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
Netherlands 2005 : EU Constitution : 61.5 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
Ireland 2008 : Lisbon Treaty : 53.2 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
Greece 2015 : Euro Bailout : 61.3 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
UK 2016 : Remain in the EU : 51.9 percent voted NO : Result?... well I think you can guess

It's always amazing how these 'advisory' votes stop being advisory when they please certain people Anyway I think people are getting their knickers in a twist for nothing - don't worry there is no danger of UK being allowed to leave the EU. All you have to hope is that you don't damage your country too much in what you give away in the process.

 

[SoundSound is verified member.]

The genie is out of the bottle and we now have to have some flavour of brexit before we all as a country can move on with our lives

Anything else like second referendum or revoking article 50 just adds to the mess.

Edwin if your book gains traction and is picked up by the media you are going to have journalists look at and talk about all aspects of your personal life I hope you have planned for it and are mentally prepared?

 

[websaway]

Edwin the irony of all this is that you are trying to put the tooth paste back in the tube. Your original quote not mine.

 

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

Edwin if your book gains traction and is picked up by the media you are going to have journalists look at and talk about all aspects of your personal life I hope you have planned for it and are mentally prepared?

I think that might be a worry if he was very pro leaving and had strong views on immigration because hanging someone out to dry as a racist white xenophobe is a juicy story

There wont be a witch hunt on someone who favours remain, not by the media anyway

 

[websaway]

Mairead McGuinness ( irish MEP and vice president of the european parliament ) on Question Time said.
- the Irish government had to keep going back to the people until they understood the argument and gave the right result.

ring any bells
LOL

 

[websaway]

You didn't finish your sentence to be truthful
"In other words, the referendum result places a non-legal but still real obligation on the government to try to implement the outcome provided it is the result they want."

I saw this in a comment section on a blog. 'Democracy EU style'
Denmark 1992 : Maastricht Treaty : 51.7 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
Ireland 2001 : Nice Treaty : 53.9 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
France 2005 : EU constitution : 54.9 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
Netherlands 2005 : EU Constitution : 61.5 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
Ireland 2008 : Lisbon Treaty : 53.2 percent voted NO : Result? forced to vote again (a yes vote 2nd time.. accepted)
Greece 2015 : Euro Bailout : 61.3 percent voted NO : Result? Ignored.
UK 2016 : Remain in the EU : 51.9 percent voted NO : Result?... well I think you can guess
.

this post is more relevant than edwins 360 pages of his book.

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

I don't see it is as more relevant. There are those who want to leave and those who don't. Each side has their reasons. However it's intellectually dishonest to *try* and find reasons to remain under any guise than the real one - we lost and we don't like the result. All that says to me is the proponent is deceitful and it doesn't help their cause any. Leavers are not angry at remainers for having a different opinion. They are angry for being branded racists and all kinds of other things, constantly talked down to, cajoled, abused (by the media, the minisiters etc) for wanting (what they believe is) the best for their country and, having been proven to be in the majority, that simply shouldn't be happening a country that claims to be democratic. Orwell doublespeak is here. Democracy = antidemocracy. patriotism = racism. Losing = winning. etc You can say whatever you want, provided it is what I want to hear. Otherwise you're a fascist. You can vote whichever way you want, provided it is the correct way, otherwise you're stupid.

 

[SiusaidhSiusaidh is verified member.]

I agree with lots in your last post Rob. I agree there are fair arguments on both sides of the debate. I hope I'm not arguing dishonestly. I honestly was a complete floating voter all through the campaign and still didn't know what to vote for on the day of the referendum. It was a toss of the coin. In the end, because my partner is Latvian, I just went along with remain so as not to negate my partner's vote. But for years I have agreed with you that the 'Establishment' has tried to impose the European federal project on everyone. Personally, my position is more in sympathy with what we were originally sold in the 1970s - a trading relationship, not an increasingly federal superstate.

I also agree that there has been classic condescension by some towards people who supported 'leave' branding them thick, ill-educated, racist, etc. Some people *are* like that, and tbh I think fears over the scale of immigration did play a part in some people's votes. But I think generally it was just a matter of most people coming to different reasons, without desire for hatred over it. I also believe in patriotism, and if people want to determine their own future, because they're proud of their country, that's not racist. I would think that because I believe in Scottish self-determination and I'm hugely proud of Scotland. Why shouldn't English people feel that way too? And like I say, the concept of a huge, impersonal, not always accountable superstate does pose constraints on nations' sovereignty.

Set against that, my view of the world is that we face at least three huge threats: one is economic domination of the many by the oligarchs and billionaires; linked to that threat, which is motivated by growth and desire for profit for the 'haves', is the threat to our planet, and the habitats of the diverse life forms on it; and thirdly, I believe there is a threat of barbarism, often on the back of fundamentalism and populism. It is particularly this last threat that, it seems to me, makes a closely linked Europe precious - as the last, best hope for Enlightenment values which I believe in. There is a danger of Europe folding, and I think that could be very bad.

Anyway, I've tried to express my reasoning for and against, as honestly as I can. I'm diving out of this thread now. We're a domain community, and generally we get on well with one another, and politics (as is self-evident) can be divisive. I'll go with whatever outcome emerges, except that if it ends in a no-deal then I reserve the right to vote for Scottish independence.

Back to my work...

 

[BREWSTERS]

I wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum, I can't help but feel that a lot of the older people who voted for an independent UK are now dead. I'm not sure on the stats but wonder if @Edwin can confirm that demographically we'd now likely win a referendum.

For every every leaver who has died in the interim, 0.9 remainers will also have died. Plus, probably two remainers will have seen how the EU and politicians in general behave, and will have come to their senses and changed to Leave. The fewer politicians of all persuasions we have with their noses in the trough, the better.

 

[BREWSTERS]

It won't end but science says that global population will drop to less than 250 million.

"Science says"

There are two kinds of science my friend...

 

[Gill]

There is a danger of Europe folding, and I think that could be very bad.

Here's the thing, the media's narrative is that right wing groups are on the rise in Europe and it's going to lead to civil unrest. Actually the biggest threat to Europe - and the World for that matter - is posed by the left who under leaders like Tony Blair have forced our young people into further education in order to indoctrinate them with left wing propaganda.

My niece is 21 and last week I asked her which way she'll vote if there's a another referendum. Leave was her answer and the reason, because two of her tutors at uni had told her there'll be a war if we leave the EU!

The very people that have failed our youngsters by creating low wage economies, facilitated by the free movement of cheap labour, are doing a great job at convincing them that it's the rich, old, racist, bigots that voted to Leave the EU that are the reason their prospects are so poor.